A rebuttal to Jarrah's latest masterpiece

[Zakalwe]

All of which brings us to the wonderful depth of knowledge one can acquire by studying the actual facts surrounding Apollo and the Space Race.  Conspiracy theorists use conspiracism as a shortcut to erudition.  Why not just study the real thing?

Because to do so would cause one to face up to one's own shortcomings- to admit that others are far smarter and far more capable. By maintaining that there is a hoax, the hoaxie gets a false sense of superiority, a feeling that they hold some special knowledge that even smart people with PHDs can't see.
To get to the level of knowledge that is needed to fully understand some of the concepts that Apollo used requires brains and a lot of hard graft in learning the skills. Hoaxies just aren't prepared 9or capable) to put that much effort in. Plus, for the likes of Jarrah White, acknowledging that others are smarter would be a massive blow to the ego. Thats why he skulks off like a cowardly dog when he tries to use maths to prove his case...he cannot admit his error and falls back to quote-mining.

[Echnaton]

Why not just study the real thing?

Because it is like listening to Bartok or Schoenberg, the complexity and density is intriguing but ultimately it gives me a headache. 

[JayUtah]

Facing up to one's shortcomings is only half the answer, I think.  Yes, I agree with your analysis.  But I think the conclusion needs some nuance in the sense that it's okay not to be a rocket scientist or an astrophysicist.  If your "shortcoming" is that you don't understand some particularly complicated section of human knowledge, then I think you're doing well.  I know plenty of rocket scientists who wish they had, for example, the social skills that their less brainy friends have.  When we describe this dissonance as a "shortcoming" it sounds like an insult.  It's really no more insidious than noting a conspiracist defines for himself what it means to be "great," and a failure to clear that hurdle -- however inappropriately high it's set -- generates shame.  It's irrational shame, for the most part.

But narcissism is a factor, I think.  If you're just one of many people who believe in what the mainstream believes, then you're not special.  I gather many conspiracists fear obscurity far more than they fear being wrong.  So when I say conspiracism is a shortcut to erudition, that's only half the opinion.  It's a shortcut to erudition for which the proponent expects to be recognized.  Unable to gain strong recognition by their own merits, they attach themselves to some noteworthy event -- historical graffiti, as Jim Oberg (or maybe someone else) put it.

[JayUtah]

Because it is like listening to Bartok or Schoenberg, the complexity and density is intriguing but ultimately it gives me a headache.

Try performing Bartok.  Or Olivier Messaien, if you want to go the full musical migraine route.

Sure, we have performers and musicologists who can dissect technically profound music and gush about it using words I don't really understand, or care to.  And perhaps they're seeing something in it that I don't.  I recall the organist playing a Messaien piece and overhearing a little girl ask her mother, "Mommy, what's wrong with the organ?"  Clearly there's intellectual meat in musical Messaien or literary Joyce or visual Pollack that others enjoy, some despise, and most just choose to leave alone.  My approach to Frank Stella is to stand in front of one of his mural-sized works and whisper-yell "Stellaaaa!!!!" while looking vaguely upward.  I'm sure wherever the ghost of Tennessee Williams is, he's laughing his butt off at Frank's expense.

But I digress.  Most people, regardless of their background, are here because they have some interest in how Apollo worked.  Some people can explain it in great depth.  Others don't care to absorb the science to that degree, and that's fine because they have an appreciation for it that suits their level of understanding and interest.   I just wonder about the mindsets and motivations of people who don't care to see how it's done but by the same token don't believe it could have been done.  Meh, here's where the comparison to the arts falls apart.  It's okay if you don't like Mahler or Purcell, or if you'd rather look at Warhols than Rembrandts.  That's a matter of preference and style.  And yes, Messaien sounds like the organist needs to clean his glasses or lay off the sacramental wine, but it's not until you get to criticism that tries to shove it into a pigeonhole that wasn't meant for it that you get to shake your head at the critic.

If you have enough interest in Apollo and enough drive to research the conspiracy end of it to the nth degree, you probably have enough drive to learn about the reality of it and be genuinely erudite.

[Echnaton]

If you have enough interest in Apollo and enough drive to research the conspiracy end of it to the nth degree, you probably have enough drive to learn about the reality of it and be genuinely erudite.

I really see it differently.

I could never be a aerospace engineer, because too much of it gives me a headache.  Much like Bartok and Schoenberg, the early work is challenging, intriguing, enjoyable and rewarding. Like Verklärte Nacht.   As the work progresses the complexity takes over, and again there is the headache and no amount of time spent listening nor close attention paid has ever been able to make it go away.  I have only been able to push back the boundaries a small bit.   I had a friend/roommate with such a visceral response to Philip Glass that he honestly accused me of sabotaging our friendship when I played some early albums.  He saw it as little more than a conspiracy.  (Only the fates knows why I can deal with Glass but not Bartok.)

Swindlers are good at what they do, but can only put on a word deep sham of the knowledge of the business they are hyping.   Like wise people who see conspiracies do so because they are good at seeing them.  Both have their own personal strength and play to it and enough drive to overcome the challenges needed to see it through.  Challenges like truth and honesty.  Real knowledge of aerospace  engineering , I believe, is beyond their scope and even the early work is pain inducing. 

[Echnaton]

Try performing Bartok.  Or Olivier Messaien, if you want to go the full musical migraine route.

Ah, but if I could.......

[smartcooky]

I could never be a aerospace engineer, because too much of it gives me a headache.  Much like Bartok and Schoenberg, the early work is challenging, intriguing, enjoyable and rewarding. Like Verklärte Nacht.   As the work progresses the complexity takes over, and again there is the headache and no amount of time spent listening nor close attention paid has ever been able to make it go away.  I have only been able to push back the boundaries a small bit.   I had a friend/roommate with such a visceral response to Philip Glass that he honestly accused me of sabotaging our friendship when I played some early albums.  He saw it as little more than a conspiracy.  (Only the fates knows why I can deal with Glass but not Bartok.)

If you want a REAL musical headache, its difficult to go past Penderecki. One piece of his (I cannot remember the name) involves the playing of a violin above the top nut (for the uninitiated, that is beyond the end of the fingerboard up where the tuning pegs are).

To say that this sounds like a Tomcat having its testicles ripped off would be understating the case!

[JayUtah]

I really see it differently.

And your explanation makes perfect sense.  Thanks!

[Bob B.]

Like wise people who see conspiracies do so because they are good at seeing them.

I hazard a guess that most of us here are good at seeing them, or, more accurately, at predicting them.  How often have you seen or heard something and immediately thought to yourself that the conspiracy theorists are going to be all over that.  And almost invariably they are.  Many of us can probably predict exactly what the conspiracy theorists are going to say even before they say it.  Conspiracy theorists aren't necessarily better at seeing conspiracies, they are just better at believing them.

[nomuse]

Only as good at seeing them, and a little poorer at constructing them. Hollywood can do a more precise (emotionally targeted, easily described) conspiracy without hardly trying. Which is why the believers borrow from them so often.

[gillianren]

I really see it differently.

And your explanation makes perfect sense.  Thanks!

Yeah, I can listen to Glass, but you guys have no idea how many times I've skipped pages and pages because it's all math.

[Al Johnston]

I could never be a aerospace engineer, because too much of it gives me a headache.  Much like Bartok and Schoenberg, the early work is challenging, intriguing, enjoyable and rewarding. Like Verklärte Nacht.   As the work progresses the complexity takes over, and again there is the headache and no amount of time spent listening nor close attention paid has ever been able to make it go away.  I have only been able to push back the boundaries a small bit.   I had a friend/roommate with such a visceral response to Philip Glass that he honestly accused me of sabotaging our friendship when I played some early albums.  He saw it as little more than a conspiracy.  (Only the fates knows why I can deal with Glass but not Bartok.)

If you want a REAL musical headache, its difficult to go past Penderecki. One piece of his (I cannot remember the name) involves the playing of a violin above the top nut (for the uninitiated, that is beyond the end of the fingerboard up where the tuning pegs are).

To say that this sounds like a Tomcat having its testicles ripped off would be understating the case!

Are you sure that isn't Nigel from Spinal Tap?

[Echnaton]

If you want a REAL musical headache, its difficult to go past Penderecki

For certain a definition of music. 

I have a few pieces of Penderecki because the came paired on albums containing music from fellow countryman Witold Lutoslawski.  I made an extensive effort to grasp Lutoslawski in the 80's but most of music on those albums now resided only in my digitized backup and on the CDs sitting in a binder on a high shelf.

[dwight]

Can I ask a practical question? Are we doing Stonehenge tomorrow night?

[nomuse]

The set arrived today. It's in this box.